quote:

---

Original post by LockePick
Your arguement is fine in theory, but in real life everyone has made ties to gameply features just from the genre.

---

Not everyone.

quote:

---

Those ties are not easily broken, so it''s best to start from scratch, or you''ll end up most all of the above things.

---

Too bad. Movies are highly stylized and fairly regular; groundbreaking, new "work of art" movies are few and far between. Yet not every action flick is a carbon copy, even though they''re all pitched the same to each studio execs.

I suppose the intent here is to help the unimaginative and uninspired aspire to greatness - "Follow this forumla, not that one, and you can''t go wrong."

Bollocks.

Huge problems with the article, starting with the base assumption that the author makes.

Assumption: That everyone (or most) designers start with a genre, then decide what they want to change in the genre to make their game unique.

Reality: Designers come up with an idea based upon a setting and it comes from what they''ve read, seen in movies, done in life and other games that they''ve played. They then label it in a genre based upon the gameplay that they envision in the game that they''ve created in their mind.

I was pretty much annoyed by his entire article, most people use genre labels when they talk to other people because it gives them a frame of reference. He assumes that because they choose to give him a point of reference so that he will be able to better visualize the game, that this is where they started apparently. I honestly can''t think of anything further from the truth for most people. I wanted to make an MMOG long before they existed, I still describe the game that I''m working on as an MMOG, that doesn''t mean that it''s where I started, just that I''m giving the person that I''m communicating with a point of reference.

The only, yet largest assumption that I know of that many game designers make is that everyone else is an idiot. They don''t say that in so many words, but they allude to it in every word that they speak/type. They assume that games today could be much more powerful and that games are able to keep track of every single item, whether it be a rock, dirt clod, sword, gun or whatever. Reality is that all of these objects take up space, it takes time to go look at that space, the more objects, the more often you have to go look them up, the slower the game goes and the more complex it all gets. Oh, you dug a hole there? OK, we''ll propogate a map change to everyone that logs in... Well, it''s not a multiplayer game, so all we need to do now is make a map editor that will automatically edit the map when necessary... simple, right?

I am most impressed by the list of games that he''s currently working on and finished though. Maybe after he gains a few years in the world he will be able to understand that he isn''t the one "great white hope" for the gaming industry and that maybe some of the rest of us do know what the heck we''re talking about at times and really are doing the best that can be done with the tools at our disposal.

Not a bad article... I just feel that the author doesn''t realize he''s stating the obvious. He''s a bit too excited over his revelation and not really thinking about it. For instance, he doesn''t mention the fact that most games are built on existing engines. This could cause a lot of games to look and play similarly. Naturally, most games are just slight deviations of other games... the industry has ALWAYS been that way but now we''re getting things done much faster. Who could forget the onslught of pre-Doom flight simulators? How many years did that last?

He also says that there has not been much advancement since Doom. I think that''s just being negative. Even though, I''m always complaining that things need to be pushed further, I still think that games have made some great advancements. By saying that they haven''t is a pretty big insult to some other developers out there that have worked hard to create wonderful ideas.

Honestly, I don''t see anything wrong with saying you want to create a FPS derivative. On the other hand, it''s the people that want to create the FPS clone that are silly. "I''m gonna spend thousands of hours of my time on something that already exists." It''s kinda funny and I guess we''ve all gone through that stage at some point. I wanted to create an Elite clone, myself. But, from what I can see, any designer that wants to create a game (and knows a lil'' sumthin'' about how to do it) usually starts off with an idea and then decides what engine (if any) to build it on.

Like I said, it''s not a bad article but it should be aimed at the n00bs. But the author is misguided by targeting seasoned designers. Just because Half-life looks and plays a lil'' like Quake 2 doesn''t mean the designers sat down and said lets create a Quake clone or an FPS. They probably sat down and said, "Hey, I have a great story line and it will require good AI and emersive cinematic cut-scenes". The Quake 2 engine was just a means to an end.


- Jay

"Strictly speaking, there is no need to teach the student, because the student himself is Buddha, even though he may not be aware of it." - Shunryu Suzuki

Get Tranced!

I think what the other is trying to state here is the Sid Meier rule: Start with the design, and choose the genre later.

For example, say you want to make a futuristic game about a fight between fighting worlds. You could design the game first, and then choose the genre. You could make it action like be in one of their armies or be an undercover agent, you could make it strategy by being one of the worlds, you could make it RPG by playing a character that travels through this world, you could make it a sim where you are a fighter pilot in the world flying through the cities, or you could make it sports where - well, scratch that.

I think I see where the author is coming from. While I don''t think every designer thinks that if you design a game for a certain genre that you have to accept all the "conditionals" associated with it, he does have a point that people tend to design from genre to idea, rather than idea to genre. In other words, game design is somewhat constrained because a certain amount of pigeonholing has already been created.

I also think something he doesn''t mention is common amongst game designers.....that the game world setting is not fully fleshed out before the game play is designed. It''s like, "I have this sci-fi game in mind", and other than designing the weapons very little else is thought out other than it''s a generic "sci fi" setting (yaawwwnnn). No though of the socio-political backdrop, of the technological resources, of the cultures, basically nothing other than the card board cut out of the things you play with. While this works to a degree, I think it can create a lot of imbalance problems, and makes sequels harder to do. But most importantly, I think it seperates the average game from the great game.

I personally look at the world setting first, then design around that. I also look at things that personally interest me...for selfish reasons. If I''m not interested in it, I doubt I could work up the work ethic to actually work on the game idea. I admittedly have some pretty strange game ideas...most of them are actually more akin to simulators than games. I''d like to see a scuba diving sim, I''d like to make a survival sim but set in the late 1800''s, and I have a few RTS games in mind. I also have a martial arts "training" game in mind....imagine an interactive game sorta like the Karate Kid/Jedi Master trains Padawan apprentice and you get an idea But the game play would be very different than you expect...very little fighting. Some people say this is the wrong approach to designing games, that games are a business and like any business should cater to the needs of the customer rather than the needs of the designer. That''s all well and good, but I''d rather do what I enjoy even if it means just being a hobby. I work in the same building of the EA Tiburon division, but I just can''t stomach myself to actually talk to or meet anyone for contacts because I just hate Sports games. MAybe that''s a bad move on my part, but it''s just how I feel.

I think most designs fall into one of the following:
1. Revamp of existing idea because
(a) It makes commercial sense (DOOM, DOOM II ... DOOM MCMXV)
(b) The designer understands it and wants to add their own spin.
(c) Its a fun product and easy to learn from (lots of these)

2. Ive always fancied having something like.... A personal project!
This is me. A ten year old idea thats been rehashed on many occassions. Doesnt fit in one genre (fits in about three) but I dont give two hoots because this is MY project.

3. Deliberate development of someting 'new' - Professionalism!
You sit down and take from all your experiences as think 'what would I like to spend 100 hours doing?'. You draw it out, you refine it, you critically appraise your work and then you
start developing it. If it fits in a Genre at all then its not deliberate, but you are shrewed enough to capitalise on it where you can, if it suits you.

Many projects drift between category 2 and 3 as they grow and mature, get lost, get found, etc.

As you can see I think all options are equally valid for diferent reasons. Of course the best known games are commercial and as has been said they often re-use the engine and/or plot but thats because reducing that £1,000,000 bill or guaranteeing some income is vitally important to publishers. You can easily go bust producing that unique game.

I personally like category 2 products as they often offer the most game play etc (but Im biased) and I am often impressed with the latter category (such as Sid Meirs first creations).

Regards


[edited by - baelwrath on June 22, 2002 3:53:44 PM]

All I have to say is: I said something like this before.
http://www.gamedev.net/community/forums/topic.asp?topic_id=97003

Edited because I had no idea how to link, so did it the easy way.

[edited by - ThoughtBubble on June 22, 2002 3:45:45 PM]

this is a quote from the article:
"A great tool for this, if I say so myself, is the Fourteen Forms of Fun. By going through those forms and finding which apply to your great new idea."

does anyone know what are the "Fourteen Forms of Fun?" I can''t find them in the article.

---

My compiler generates one error message: "Doesn''t compile."
-Albert Tedja-

quote:

---

Original post by nicho_tedja
this is a quote from the article:
"A great tool for this, if I say so myself, is the Fourteen Forms of Fun. By going through those forms and finding which apply to your great new idea."

does anyone know what are the "Fourteen Forms of Fun?" I can''t find them in the article.

---

My compiler generates one error message: "Doesn''t compile."
-Albert Tedja-

---

http://www.gamasutra.com/features/20011012/garneau_01.htm

* Beauty
* Immersion
* Intellectual Problem Solving
* Competition
* Social Interaction
* Comedy
* Thrill of Danger
* Physical Activity
* Love
* Creation
* Power
* Discovery
* Advancement and Completion
* Application of an Ability

Once more, Google to the rescue!

The "Fourteed Forms of Fun" refers to an article that this same author wrote last year for Gamasutra. The first time he references "Fourteen Forms of Fun", he made it a link to that article on gamasutra.com, though it doesn''t jump out the first couple of times you look at it.

"14 Forms..." was a rather interesting look at the various different types of "why play games". While much that PAG says seems to me to be rather preachy, his older article was more informative. At the very least, I found it to dig a bit deeper into the reasons why some games can be successful and others can''t; much more so than this generic "genre" article.

--Roderick Smith